Confirmation Bias and the internet

Trademark ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 12:18 am

Another thread prompted me to write this.

People often think that the internet makes you smarter, more educated, and more knowledgeable by having all the world's info at your fingertips.

But the opposite is actually true.

The way the algorithms works is that if for examples you search for the danger of vaccines and read a few anti-vax articles the algorithm will provide you with more such sites only taking you deeper into the rabbit hole. It won't bring you opposing viewpoints. It's not here to make you smarter, it's here just to make sure you stay online for as long as possible.

That way you stay in your own little bubble and that's one the dangers of the internet. You can go online and confirm any of your beliefs with thousands of articles. You have to know how to use it.

Some of these posts just scream, "I'm smart and know better because I have read something online."

Have you noticed this too?

bgr8ful ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 2:21 am

yup. for sure.
and now we have a society of everyone feeling so strongly about their opinion and being unwilling to even listen or respect anyone with an opposing viewpoint, b/c their algorithm not only just pushes info to back up wtvr they already believe, theyre also constantly hearing that the other side is not only wrong, but also dangerous and crazy. we've lost the ability to have civilized conversations with each other.
when I think into it every now and then I get scared for how society is gonna evolve in the next few years.
then I'm just like G-d, this is way bigger than me and above my pay grade. its Your human race, Your problem Salut

ora_43 ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 7:14 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

Op, I couldn't disagree more. You say the internet offers confirmation bias. I find that a general search mostly offers left wing talking points. You would have to dig much deeper to see the other side.

Do you think you can find honest info about BLM with a simple search? Joe Biden's dementia? What about vaccine injuries? How about all the times the science changed in the last 3 years regarding covid? Same goes with climate change. It's much harder to find the conservative view point than the liberal side.

If I Google "jan 6", what do you think I get? I can assure you it's anything but confirmation bias.

I think this is a mix of bias, reality, and 'just you.'

Bias - there are flesh-and-blood people making decisions about what is and isn't misinformation, and they have their own biases. There's also the issue that there tends to be a lot of overlap between well-funded media outlets, media outlets that show up high in the results list, and media outlets that toe the party line.

Reality - we can't expect 'both sides' to get a 50-50 split on all issues. Eg nearly all scientists believe human-caused climate change is real, so nearly all articles that show up on a google search are going to show the same.

Just you - I'm not sure why you don't see the changes in covid policy over time, or accusations of Biden having dementia - those both feature prominently when I search. Eg the top 3 results for "Joe Biden mental state" are all from conservative sites questioning Biden's mental fitness. So this might be just another example of exactly what OP was talking about - different people getting different news based on search history.

(although my guess would be that your search history is if anything more conservative-oriented than mine, so I'm not sure why it's like that)

↑ shoshanim999 ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 10:17 am

ora_43 wrote:

So which is it? If you agree that the powers that be aren't 50/50, then isn't it inevitable that our internet searches will reflect this? And instead of it being an example of confirmation bias, it will instead be somewhat of a brainwashing where the masses are viewing mostly what a select few want them to see.

I was surprised to see as much as I did about Biden's cognitive decline.

I think your statement that "most scientists believe human caused climate change is real" is an example of the point I'm trying to make. While that statement by itself is true, it excludes the entire argument of the other side (the argument that's hard to find unless you look hard) Namely, that we have very little knowledge of the extent humans influence the climate, we have no measure at all of specifically what action by humans would result in a specific outcome, and whether it's possible to even begin to fight climate change when so many countries are not. It also leaves out that at the end of the day while the world is experiencing this "climate crisis", climate related deaths are down over 90% from 100 years ago, life expectancy and quality of life are higher than they've ever been.

I'm fine with Covid changing over time. We can agree on that. The point is that the "science" was wrong from the outset. This isn't a matter of things changing. They were wrong from the beginning on many of their core claims. They said the vaccinated wouldn't get covid. Wrong from day 1. They then changed it to the vaccinated won't spread covid. Wrong from day one. I think it's hard to find this stuff.

I think the riots in Chicago and the Walmart closings are a current example of the media's brainwashing. Almost all the articles leave out or only make a small mention of the fact that the city is riddled with crime. The people living there continuously elect leaders that are soft on criminals and almost promote shoplifting by not enforcing jail sentences. It's no wonder Walmart is leaving. Do you think the media (internet) will cover the story honestly and say that the POC in Chicago are their own worst enemy by robbing and looting these stores and played a large part in forcing them to leave?

↑ ora_43 ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 1:17 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

So which is it? If you agree that the powers that be aren't 50/50, then isn't it inevitable that our internet searches will reflect this?

Yes, but that's not what OP is talking about.

If 90% of food bloggers think cookies are better with butter, and 10% think cookies are better with oil, then only 10% of cookie recipes will have oil. If only 10% of the cookie recipes you see have oil, that means there isn't internet bias. What you see is an accurate reflection of the opinions in society (or at least, among the segment of society that publishes its opinions online). It's not 50-50, but it's an accurate reflection of a reality that isn't 50-50.

What OP is talking about is a situation where what you see does not reflect the balance of opinions online. Eg 80% of news reports support Ukraine, 20% support Russia, but because someone - let's call him Dave - has hit "like" on three pro-Russia articles, he now sees 90% articles that support Russia and only 10% supporting Ukraine. What he sees is not an accurate reflection of the opinions in society - it's a warped version created by the algorithm. He lives in a fake, algorithm-created world in which most people agree with him.

That's a problem.

The questions of whether the media is biased, or whether bloggers are right to prefer butter, etc, are all well and good - but are also very different issues than the one this thread is about, with very different solutions.

Quote:

Namely, that we have very little knowledge of the extent humans influence the climate, we have no measure at all of specifically what action by humans would result in a specific outcome, and whether it's possible to even begin to fight climate change when so many countries are not.

If you look at even the most basic materials about climate change, they'll talk about different predicted impacts based on different assumptions. In other words, they will state right up front that we don't know exactly how severe the impact is.

The question of how to fight climate change is, similarly, a very very widespread debate that's extremely easy to find on both the right and left.

Quote:

The point is that the "science" was wrong from the outset... They said the vaccinated wouldn't get covid.

I think you're confusing "the science" with "the media" or maybe "the politicians." No actual researchers were making claims anywhere near that bold (there were studies showing that some vaccines reduced transmission, but that was actually true and is still true - it's just that they didn't reduce transmission of all variants. which researchers never claimed they did).

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 2:14 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

Nearly all scientists agree with the climate change hoax, because scientists are funded by the government and must parrot the government hoax or be fired, branded a kook, etc.

Proof: Nearly all scientists say a man can get pregnant. Same for doctors.

They are all coerced to repeat government lies.

↑ bgr8ful

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 2:47 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

thats not the point though. the point isn't that we can argue back and forth with all the "proof" that we've seen online.
the point is that our algorithms feed us whatever we already believe, it makes us think that we're the smart ones, the ones with the right information, and that everyone else that doesn't think exactly like us is dumb, dangerous and/or crazy. it creates an environment where everyone is so entrenched in whatever they think that they can't get out of it to really hear anything else.

as an aside, for anyone with instagram, I recently started following @houseinhabit. shes an independent journalist (which I think is the only place to find real, honest journalism nowadays) who really has a balanced outlook on many things, she brings both sides of arguments and takes apart things really well. not only on politics, lots of different topics. dont go to her account if youre too sensitive, you will get triggered. but shes great, I really enjoy her content.

↑ Trademark ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 2:55 pm

Phoebe31 wrote:

While I hear you about the algorithm, I also do think that having internet can help you learn more as you have the whole world at your fingertips. As opposed to just having the books that your parents/school allows you to.

This is why I believe in teaching your kids safe internet use instead of banning it altogether.

That's why I said in the op that you have to know how to use it.

But this post wasn't about children and internet use.

I was referring to the people who think they know things, because they made "research." You have to be aware of how the algorithms work and know how to use the internet effectively.

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 7:16 pm

bgr8ful wrote:

The algorithims are programmed to show the government's narrative.

But it is not difficult (yet) to find opposing views by experts.

Fox

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 10:54 pm

I was born in 1960, but I was a very early Internet adopter -- so I've lived approximately half my life before the Internet and half after.

While bias confirmation is certainly a problem, it was always a problem. In major cities, different newspapers catered to different worldviews and zealously guarded their turf. Indeed, the paper to which you subscribed was thought to say a lot about you.

I think the bigger problem is one identified by Malcolm Gladwell in a series of essays: the mistaken belief that more information inherently leads to greater understanding.

He had several examples, but the one I remember was that of the failed Enron company. How could financial analysts have gotten things so wrong?

Enron dumped reams and reams of financial information on analysts. They even offered to meet with various financial journalists and even regulators.

But there was one piece of information they were very tight-lipped about: what they paid in taxes. Why? Because taxes are only paid on income -- not on pie-in-the-sky financial schemes. A look at that single piece of information demonstrated that Enron was living on borrowed time. As part of a group project, some MBA students at Cornell even sounded the alarm -- which, of course, was completely ignored.

You didn't need a lot of information to determine that Enron was essentially bankrupt; you needed one simple piece of information -- the right piece.

When we use the Internet, we get inundated with information. It may even be "true." But something can be true while also being the wrong information for a particular task.

The Internet does a good job answering our questions. The problem is that we have to know precisely what question to ask.